Case No. BV19D16672

72.H’s case is that there should be a significant discount from an equal division of the value of the business to reflect his efforts post-separation. W says that there should be no or minimal discount in respect of his endeavour to date as he has been trading with what was her share of the liquid money available following the termination payment, and that there should only be a small discount to reflect his work over the next 5 years until payment is made.73.H has invested $58m in ABC. He has of course received significant benefits over the years but his interest is now valued at much less than he put in. Three of the four investments that he has made in his own name have not been as successful as he would have liked. In short, W accuses H of reducing the matrimonial pot by his use of money. She says that this should reduce the discount.74.The figures set out above are bald but they do show that as a result of events, many of which will have been beyond H’s control, the value of his stake in the business has fallen over the course of the last few years.75.I do not accept his primary argument that the value that was created in the first year or two of the business was the result of post separation accrual. For the reasons that I have already set out I find that the funds which were invested in the business in the hugely successful first two years were created during the marriage and reflect his investment of assets created during that time. 76.I will deal later with his work yet to be done.